Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Early poll shows strong support for GMO food labels - Discussion Robert Wager

Early poll shows strong support for GMO food labels:

Robert Wager


Science journalism specializing in Agricultural Biotechnology

  • Discussion on West Hawaii Today

    Setting the record straight on GMO rules

    • RobertWager  3 days ago
      Also this document can help you learn how food is tested.
    • RobertWager  3 days ago
      OK lets look at that exactly how would that occur. You see humans must have significant variety in the there diet or they get sick. How would you set up the diet to deal with this confounding variable?
      Toxicology is clear this is just one of many confounding variables that make human food trials virtually impossible to do so animal tests are done to answer thequestions about GE crops and derived food.
      Please tell this forum how and where the following testing protocols are not sufficient
      Guidelines for Risk Assessment of Food and Feed from GM Plants (2011
      Principles of Risk Assessment (4 subcategories)
      Molecular Characterization (2 subccategories)
      Comparative Assessment (5 subcategories)
      Toxicological Assessment (5 subcategories)
      Allergenicity Assessment (3 subcategories)
      Nutritional Assessment (2 subcategories)
      Exposure Assessment
      Risk Characterization
      Would you like the link to the document?
    • RobertWager  3 days ago
      You left out the part that every test was done according to OECD standards for food toxicology. perhaps you will answer the question. what tests not already done would you like to see added to the evaluation process for GE crops and why?
    • RobertWager  3 days ago
      Are you saying every National Academy of Science, every food safety authority and every health authority in the world that has looked at GE crops and derived food and all agree on the safety of them have been fooled by pseudo-science?
    • RobertWager  3 days ago
      So please enlighten this forum. What test not already done would you like to see added and why?
    • RobertWager  3 days ago
      No GMO just give it a rest. We have been thru this a dozen times. I rfeceiced exactly zero dollars and zero cents. Every nickel went to hotels, airlines, etc. if you think that constitutes a paid spokesperson role you are dead wrong. Now would you like to discuss the information i posted or just more accusations?
    • RobertWager  3 days ago
      You are correct about one thing, I am on the web wherever i see pseudo-science being passed off as real science information about GMO's. Care to challenge any specific points I made or is it just a name-calling activity? Would you like the links to the information I presented so you can "check it out for yourself"?
    • RobertWager  3 days ago
      Please be specific, which particular information I presented would you like to challenge for accuracy? And I challenge you to put forward any proof that Biofortified has any connection to Monsanto. Further show any connect between my self and any biotech company?
    • RobertWager  4 days ago
      Wow has she got it wrong on so many fronts.
      One: GE crops and derived food are tested 10-50 times the levels of non-GM crops and food. Substantial equivalence is a determined category, it is not granted without a great deal of testing. One would think a politician making laws about GE crops would know that.
      Two: "Unregulate GMO food" How on earth can this politician say this with a straight face? USDA, EPA and FDA all regulate GE crops and derived food.
      Please tell this forum what test(s) not already done you would like to see added to the evaluation process of GE crops and why?
      Just because she ignores the decades of research and hundreds or independent studies that show GE crops and derived food are as safe or safer than food from other breeding methods in no way invalidates this research. Here is one such document she can read:
      A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research 2001-2010
      Food Safety:
      “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”
      or the Biofortified.org genera site for many many more. Again such completely false statements from a politician should be reason for concern from the citizens she represents.
      Three: "blocked inquiry" Sorry yet another myth. There are thousands of research projects around the world and every single one that is done properly with proper controls, and methodology all show GE crops and derived food to be as safe or safer than food from other breeding methods. It is very unsettling that a politician would say the opposite of what she knows to be true.
      Another myth about being sued. No farmer has ever been sued by Monsanto for adventitious presence of GE in their non-GE field.
      I find it very hard to believe she is unaware of this document showing no such lawsuits .have ever occurred. So people create fear about the myth of law suits and then organic farmers believe the myths and destroy their own crops and it is the fault of those who had the myths made against them? Wow interesting logic councilor.
      Can't wait for the next round of myths about GE crops and derived food from the councilor..
      Perhaps she can explain this from the European Academies of Science Advisory Council 2013 report-Planting the Future:
      "There is no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding.''There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy." EASAC (2013)
  • Discussion on The Star

    Researchers want ban on GMO lifted

    • RobertWager  3 days ago
      It is truly unfortunate that the editorial staff at your paper feels the need to block the public from the true science on GMO's. (twice I posted the Planting the Future quotes from the EASAC) pity

No comments:

Post a Comment